Bay Area cities, counties confront legal pot

Steve Evans positions a pot plant in a greenhouse at his home in Santa Rosa, which considered banning personal gardens.

Photo: Noah Berger, Special to The Chronicle

Wondering what the marijuana laws are in your city these days? It’s not surprising that you may not be sure.

A Chronicle analysis of the Bay Area’s 114 cities and counties shows that jurisdictions have wildly different ways of implementing Proposition 64, which legalized recreational cannabis use in November. A patchwork of differing laws greet residents who want to grow a pot plant in their backyard, visit a medical dispensary or buy marijuana at a store when recreational sales can begin Jan. 1.

Statewide legalization has hardly affected local laws in most communities. While some major cities, like San Francisco and Sacramento, have seen a surge in applications for dispensaries or farms, most communities are struggling to come up with basic regulations — and in many cases banning any pot commerce, as well as personal gardens.

The result: Today, just 15 Bay Area cities or counties have walk-in medical stores, called dispensaries. One Bay Area municipality, Emeryville, has created licensing for adult-use stores, which do not require a doctor’s note to visit. And 43 cities or counties have banned planting recreational cannabis in residents’ backyards.

While Californians legalized recreational pot to allow adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of marijuana buds and grow up to six plants indoors, it’s up to cities and counties to explicitly allow or ban shops, farms and kitchens. Cities and counties can also ban growing a few plants in residents’ backyards.

Some places, like the cities of Napa and Santa Rosa, are considering allowing cannabis shops, farms, kitchens or personal gardens. That contrasts with many localities on the Peninsula, such as Colma, that have banned anything pot-related.

But most Bay Area cities and counties fall somewhere in the middle — either doing nothing or passing temporary bans as they wait for more direction from the state, their citizens and neighboring cities.

“There’s no difference now since before the election,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a marijuana-rights advocacy group. “You can’t even tell marijuana is legal in California.”

Nearly two-thirds of Bay Area voters said “yes” to legal weed. But many city and county leaders have responded by going in the opposite direction.

Take Colma, the small Peninsula town famous for its cemeteries. On Nov. 8, nearly 59 percent of voters there favored Prop. 64. On Nov. 9, its five-member council unanimously passed an ordinance banning all commercial pot activity as well as personal cultivation “to the fullest extent of the law.” The public discussion period lasted four minutes. One resident spoke.

In an email, Colma city planner Michael Laughlin said the decision was based on Colma’s small size, limited resources, and pot’s “incompatibility” with existing businesses.

In Marin County, 72 percent of voters approved Prop. 64. But in early February, the county Board of Supervisors unanimously banned recreational weed in unincorporated areas after a five-minute hearing. No members of the public spoke.

The same story has played out in the cities of San Mateo, Capitola and Windsor.

“At this time we need to keep our attention on medical use,” said Inge Lundegaard, one of the Marin County planners working on the issue. Marin County has yet to approve a single medical dispensary in the 21 years that medical marijuana has been legal in the state.

Bay Area cities, counties confront legal pot

1of5Jacqueline McGowan monitors marijuana laws in the state through her Facebook group California — City and County Ban Watch.Photo: Michael Short, Special to the Chronicle

2of5Walnut Creek City Council member Mayor Pro Tem Justin Wedel & Loella Haskew during the public comment and official discussion of locally implementing Prop 64 - marijuana legalization Tuesday 16 May 2017 at Walnut Creek City Hall in Walnut Creek, CA. (Peter DaSilva Special to the Chronicle)Photo: Peter DaSilva

3of5Steve Evans repots a marijuana seedling at his Santa Rosa, Calif., home on Monday, May 22, 2017.Photo: Noah Berger, Special to The Chronicle

4of5Jaqueline McGowan poses for a portrait in front of City Hall in Oakland, CA, on Thursday May 25, 2017.Photo: Michael Short, Special to the Chronicle

5of5Walnut Creek Lindsay D'Andrea, Assistant City Attorney address the City Council during the public comment and official discussion of locally implementing Prop 64 - marijuana legalization Tuesday 16 May 2017 at Walnut Creek City Hall in Walnut Creek, CA. (Peter DaSilva Special to the Chronicle)Photo: Peter DaSilva

City and county officials often say they are waiting for more direction from the state and further public comment on the issue. Indeed, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation June 27 that aligned medical pot law with recreational law. And regulators from seven state agencies are formalizing draft regulations this summer.

“There’s relatively little to do until the state gets their act together,” said Adam Hoffman, the city attorney of Millbrae, one of the towns yet to draw up its cannabis policy.

Not only do many cities lack the regulatory skills to license pot commerce, but they often receive little input from residents on what they do enact, a review shows.

Perhaps no one knows more about local bans than citizen-turned-consultant Jacqueline McGowan. In early 2016, alarmed by the pace with which cities and counties were banning medical marijuana, she started a Facebook group called California — City and County Ban Watch that’s attracted more than 4,000 followers.

“Most of these laws were being passed with hardly any fanfare,” she said. “It’s extremely unfortunate that the nearly 8 million people who voted yes on Proposition 64 are unaware their will is being denied.”

Many city and county websites are out of date, she said, making important information difficult to find.

That makes it hard to follow the law. Sarah Shrader, who chairs the Sonoma County chapter of patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said, “When the laws change from ZIP code to ZIP code, that makes my job as an educator more difficult.”

When citizens do get wind of local proposals, outcomes can be different.

Steve Evans, 63, has been a medical marijuana patient since 2009 and grows pot in a home garden for his wife and ailing uncle. “It just helps my overall wellness. It’s good for older folks with just creaky bones,” said Evans, who lives in Sonoma County.

Evans and others were aghast when, in late March, Santa Rosa proposed a moratorium on all personal outdoor gardens. Evans lives just across the street from the Santa Rosa city line and identifies as a Santa Rosa resident. The city received more than 60 letters from its residents, both for and against. Some complained about the plant’s strong smell wafting in from their neighbors’ yards, while others worried about public safety.

Renee Lee, President of the Ross Moor marijuana club during the public comment and official discussion of locally implementing Prop 64 - marijuana legalization Tuesday 16 May 2017 at Walnut Creek City Hall in Walnut Creek, CA. (Peter DaSilva Special to the Chronicle)

Photo: Peter DaSilva

“We don’t see many opportunities for outdoor cultivation,” said David Guhin, the city’s director of planning and economic development. The city’s main concerns, he said, are “sight, smell and safety.” So far, the city hasn’t heard of any good “mitigation strategies” to address those concerns.

Those against the ban said growing outdoors is the only safe and sustainable way to cultivate the plant. Evans grows outdoors, he said, because it saves him hundreds of dollars per month compared with growing under lights or buying his medicine from a store.

On May 23, the Santa Rosa City Council decided not to ban personal gardens.

A similar scenario played out in Napa, where the city planned to ban personal outdoor cultivation in May, but received significant blowback. The City Council has since directed its staff to draft rules allowing outdoor gardens within city limits, though such a rule isn’t likely to reach a vote until the fall.

Napa City Councilwoman Doris Gentry is against pot, but was moved by the public comment, she said.

“It wasn’t drugged-out, whacked-out people (who came to hearings). It was a crosscut of our community who were well-prepared,” she said. “It’s about good governance. Not everything I vote on is going to be something I would want or use or take my kids to.”

There are some cities in California that are embracing local implementation of Prop. 64. The city of Sacramento accepted applications for 63 commercial gardens on April 3.

Sacramento has years of experience licensing medical pot farms, making it easier to green-light recreational farms as well, said Joe Devlin, chief of cannabis policy and enforcement for the city. “I think we got to walk a little before we thought about running.”

Cities and counties ahead of their peers on cannabis policy will continue to advance, while municipalities that have lagged behind could need a nudge from their voters, said Prop. 64 proponent Lynne Lyman. The concept of local control was part of the deal that got legalization passed, but it enshrines into law a patchwork of pot regulation.

“Prop. 64 only resolves state law,” she said. “You have to get involved at your local level.”

Spencer Silva is a freelance journalist based in Berkeley. Email David Downs at ddowns@sfchronicle.com to subscribe to The Chronicle’s cannabis coverage.